DRAFT Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab)
† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD)
† Brine, Steve (Winchester) (Con)
† Chapman, Jenny (Darlington) (Lab)
† Cunningham, Mr Jim (Coventry South) (Lab)
Field, Mr Frank (Birkenhead) (Lab)
† Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab)
† Murray, Sheryll (South East Cornwall) (Con)
† O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Eddisbury) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Parish, Neil (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab)
† Syms, Mr Robert (Poole) (Con)
† Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Rebecca Short, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 10 September 2013
[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]
Draft Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Dorries. The order sets out the conditions under which the recording and broadcasting of footage in the Court of Appeal’s civil and criminal divisions will be permitted. Before setting out further details about the order, I will briefly explain some of the background to the policy.
We believe that the more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they will have in it. Few people have direct experience of court proceedings, and public understanding of how the justice system works is limited. In principle, the majority of our courts are open to all members of the public who wish to attend, but in practice, very few people have the time and the opportunity to see what happens in court in person. Many view the criminal justice system as complicated and hard to understand, and we therefore believe that we should make our courts as accessible as possible, and make it easier for the public to get hold of information about court proceedings.
Television and the internet have an important role to play in providing the public with access to news and current affairs. It is right to respond to changes in technology and society, and to allow cameras into courts, but it is important to do so in a way that preserves balance, protects the interests of the individuals involved, and maintains the dignity of the courts. Currently, the recording and broadcasting of footage from courts below the Supreme Court is prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent in April, enables the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, to create an order specifying the circumstances in which the prohibitions in the 1925 Act and the 1981 Act may be disapplied. The Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013 is the first order to be made under that power.
The order sets out the conditions under which the statutory prohibitions on the recording and broadcasting of Court of Appeal footage will be disapplied. It allows for the recording and broadcasting of footage from the Court, which will ensure that the justice system is more visible to members of the public, but not at the cost of the proper administration of justice or the dignity of the Court. Any breach of the terms of the order may amount to contempt of court. The technical and operational
issues regarding the recording and filming of Court of Appeal footage will be addressed in an operational protocol agreed between the judiciary and media parties, with written authorisation for the relevant media parties by the Lord Chancellor.As is set out in article 5 of the order, recording and broadcasting of footage will be of specified proceedings only, where the proceedings are in open court and in front of a full court. Media parties may film only advocates’ submissions, exchanges between advocates and the Court, and the Court giving judgment. The filming of any other individuals, including appellants, members of the public, victims and witnesses, is not permitted. In cases where any party is not legally represented, only the Court giving judgment may be recorded.
So long as any applicable reporting restrictions would not be breached by broadcasting, in many cases footage may be broadcast almost live, subject to a minimum time delay, to be agreed between media parties and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. However, in some cases, it is necessary to impose restrictions on broadcasting to prevent prejudicing potential retrials and to protect the interests of justice. For that reason, where a retrial has been ordered, footage of proceedings will not be broadcast until the Court gives its permission. Where a retrial is not ordered, media parties may show footage immediately after the conclusion of proceedings. In certain limited circumstances, the court may give permission to broadcast even those cases from the outset. Until the conclusion of the case, however, the decision is solely for the judge in that appeal.
Although it is important for justice to be seen to be done, that cannot be at the expense of the proper administration of justice or the reputation of the courts. The courts deal with very serious matters, which can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of all the parties involved. Therefore we have taken steps in the order to ensure that any report or presentation using footage recorded in the Court of Appeal should be presented in a fair and accurate way. It will need to have regard to the overall content of the presentation, and to the context in which the broadcast footage is presented. Furthermore, footage may not be used in party political broadcasts, advertisement or presentation, nor for the purposes of light entertainment or satire.
We are conscious of concerns that have been raised regarding victims and witnesses, and the perceived potential detrimental effects that court broadcasting may have on their experiences in court. It is only rarely that a victim or witness will appear in person in proceedings at the Court of Appeal, as the majority of cases will be appealing on a point of law, rather than the facts of the case. However, if they are present, there are a number of safeguards in place designed to minimise any potential impact that broadcasting may have. As I have said, the order does not allow the filming of any victims or witnesses, nor footage of them to be broadcast.
In addition, existing reporting restrictions will continue to apply, and section 32(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides that the court may stop or suspend filming, or prohibit broadcast, in the interests of justice or to prevent prejudice to any person.
We are committed to increasing transparency and providing the public with information on the operation of public services. The justice system is no exception.
To many people, the law remains mysterious. Public understanding of how the courts work, and of sentencing in particular, is critical to confidence in the system and to its effectiveness in ensuring that justice is done. We believe that the order allows for greater visibility of the courts without undermining the seriousness and diligence that is so central to the quality of our justice system. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.2.37 pm
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I want to make a few comments in support of the measure. We discussed the issue very thoroughly as part of our consideration of the Crime and Courts Bill, which is now an Act. We had a few concerns at the time around the protection of victims, witnesses, juries and court staff. Those protections are now part of the order, and we are very pleased about that. Our criminal proceedings are very complex to most people, and that is because they are very complex, so if this is a measure to improve transparency—I do not think that anybody doubts that that is needed—one could argue that it does not go far enough, given its cautious nature and the restrictions that have been placed on broadcasting.
However, it is right to be cautious at this stage; we do not yet know how these broadcasts will be taken. I doubt whether “EastEnders” will be threatened by the viewing of these broadcasts; however, we need to be careful. Although we are trying to prevent their misuse, it is very difficult to understand how things will develop. The Government are right to be cautious in this instance.
I would just ask the Minister for reassurance about whether there will be any extensions, amendments, adaptations or reviews of the measure, and whether she will return to Parliament and allow us to look again at its implementation. Court broadcasting is a big change to justice in our country; we will be monitoring it very carefully. If the Minister will give us that reassurance, as I am sure she will, I will be happy to support her.
2.39 pm
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Hon. Members will be aware of my interest in Justice
for Families, which assists litigants in person, not only in family proceedings, but in other proceedings. I have had concerns about official recordings on a couple of occasions, so I welcome this movement forward.The constraint that means that when a litigant in person is involved in a case, only the judgment will be recorded or broadcast, is something that we may come back to in time. The Government are right to take a gradualist approach rather than a “big bang” approach, but there are some issues. If we are saying that if any one of the parties is not legally represented, the only thing that can be recorded and broadcast is the judgment, that could cause some problems over time.
2.40 pm
Mrs Grant: I listened carefully to the comments made by the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Darlington —and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. This has been an interesting, albeit short, debate. I want to pick up on a couple of the points made.
First, on the shadow Minister’s point about caution, I am glad that she considers the Government to be taking a careful and considered line. We are committed to transparent and open justice, but that must not be at the expense of the administration of justice or the dignity of the court. Justice has to be seen to be done, but we are dealing with serious issues relating to liberty, livelihood and reputation, so we want to take care with these matters.
The shadow Minister also touched on the future. The Government have no intention to go beyond the two sets of circumstances relating to the Court of Appeal and, in due course, the Crown Court. I am happy to provide the reassurance that she requested.
With that in mind, I close by saying that we believe that the order before us is safe and proportionate. It will achieve the Government’s objective of transparency, while ensuring that the interests of justice are not adversely affected. I hope that Members agree that this is a proportionate and sensible measure.